With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz made his first official visit to Capitol Hill to, in part, reassure an improving manufacturing sector that domestic natural gas production would grow and that it would have access to affordable fuel. With that, he said that his agency would decide on more gas export applications by year end.

At issue, of course, is whether the nation’s natural gas producers will be able to sell their product to Asian and European countries where prices are much higher than in the United States. Currently, the glut of unconventional natural gas here, or shale gas, has dampened domestic prices — a dynamic that, conversely, has benefited energy-hungry U.S. manufacturers and one that has fed their commercial expansion.

But oil and gas companies ranging from Sempra Energy to Dominion Resources to ExxonMobil Corp. have mammoth investments in so-called Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals. Those were built more than a decade ago and before the shale gas boom could have been anticipated. Now, those platforms must be converted from import to export facilities so that the natural gas can be super-cooled and shipped in the form of LNG.

“The United States has an abundance of natural gas and liquefied natural gas exports will benefit the entire U.S. economy,” says Stephen Payne, chairman of United LNG. He says that if the pending export licenses are approved, it would add $50 billion to the American economy over seven years.

To get there, companies need the approval of Energy Department. Its division, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, granted in 2012 Cheniere Energy the right to export. The Energy Department, furthermore, is permitting it to export to countries with or without a free trade agreement with this country. Next year, Cheniere is expected to begin exporting. Meantime, the Energy Department gave its permission in May so that Freeport McMoRan Energy could begin exporting up to 24 million tons of LNG a year to all countries.

The department “will expeditiously work through the remaining applications …., reviewing each one of a case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest,” says Secretary Moniz, at a hearing on Thursday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power. He said there would “absolutely” be further decisions this year.

Moniz, previously a physics professor at the the MIT Energy Initiative, has said that climate change is a real and important to solve. To that end, he views the production of shale gas as a way to minimize coal’s footprint. If such gas could be shipped overseas, it would not only increase this country’s overall economic output but it would also help others reduce their carbon footprints.

As for LNG exports: The Energy Department found in December 2012 that prices could rise as much as $1.11 over five years. But it still concluded that the overall benefits to the U.S. economy would outweigh that potential price increase. The losers, it adds, would be the chemical makers like Dow Chemical while the winners would be the domestic natural gas producers such as Chesapeake Energy and ExxonMobil.

Economically speaking, the United States, for now, has a huge lead over the would-be exporting countries. The global consultancy Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited profiles four nations that also have the potential to drill for and to sell shale gas to needy countries: Argentina, China and Poland.

The only one of those that is having luck out of the gate is Argentina, which is trying to scale up its production efforts. To succeed, national governments and their partners must figure out a way to beat the high cost of production and transportation.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that world shale technically recoverable resources outside this country are 5,760 trillion cubic feet. That’s a big jump from studies done a few years, or 40 percent more.

In the United States, which is now awash in natural gas, prices are about $4 per million Btus and futures are not expected to go much higher. By contrast, in Asia, it has been as high as $18 for the same unit. Japan spent $65 billion on LNG exports in 2012, the Deloitte paper says. That’s 25 percent more than in 2011, which is the year the tsunami and earthquake wiped out its Fukushima nuclear plant and caused it to rethink its generation portfolio.

“The U.S. shale gas revolution was three decades in the making …,” says Adi Karev, global leader for energy and resources at Deloitte Touche, in a document called ‘Oil and Gas Reality Check 2013.’ “Although other countries, particularly Poland, China and Argentina, want to replicate this success, these countries still have a long road ahead before they can begin to see the gas volumes and supporting infrastructure needed to dramatically lower domestic natural gas prices and create export opportunities.”

Secretary Moniz recognizes both the economic and environmental potential of LNG exports. But his agency must give careful consideration to the voices of opposition, which have real concerns that center on the threat of rising domestic energy prices and the ecological degradation from excessive drilling. Ultimately, though, he has signaled a willingness to increase supplies as a way to suppress prices and to help erode coal’s influence.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

This throws away any positive gains the US has seen in less expensive energy for the last 40 years—-and guarantees that the overall US economy will be shackled to rising energy costs and diminishing returns.

Any gains in lower cost energy now or in the future will be sold short for a handful of coins. Selling the family cow for a handful of beans————-and they aren’t even magic beans.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not let oil or natural gas to be exported…make the corporations use it in the USA…to drive prices for Americans down, down, down. If it ain’t born or made in the USA, neither should be allowed into the USA.

If people only knew how much nat gas is being flared off around this country while we wait for these idiot bureaucrats to make the right decision that will drive this country into prosperity again. The inventory of gas is tremendous in the Bakken, Utica and Marcellus formations and the huge economic potential is absolutely being wasted while we continually sit and wait to move to this important commodity to market. We’ve got a lot of jobs, economic growth, and increased tax revenues just sitting there and waiting. Absolutely ridiculous Moniz. Enough about your political ambitions and do the right thing for this country. You’ve got these ubiquitous leftist liberals spewing “the sky is falling” rhetoric into your ear like Grima Wormtongue. Wake up and throw the bums out of the house and do the right thing now.

How about just revert all Buses, trucks and SUV into Natural Gas then the benefits will be way out weight the $50 billion in 7 years. Also the benefits of our environments and don’t have to spend to import almost 9 million barrels of crude oil daily. That is Win-Win-Win for every one, not only the corporations but the children of all CEO of corporations will live in a better environmental USA. On top of all of those, it can drive the economy and create jobs for next 3 decades in US. Think in a long long way. Only export when we have excess after uses in US.

Better yet, require that all new vehicles sold in the US be multi-fuel capable.

They are being built and sold in Brazil and Argentina right now—and have been for years.

The Fiat Siena Tetrafuel can run on gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol(straight from the still, unblended) and/or compressed natural gas or biogas(methane).

The Siena can run on all petroleum, some petroleum, or no petroleum at all for the life of the vehicle. It is computer controlled to preferentially use the least expensive fuel first. All the consumer does is key in the cost of the fuel when the vehicle is fueled. And the MSRP is about $5,000 less than the Toyota Prius which is similar in size and equipment.

I say, if you want to have a free market system……………….you need to give the choice of what fuel they want to use back to the consumer. This technology should be on every new vehicle sold in the US and let consumers decide what fuel they want to use.

RE: “The United States has an abundance of natural gas and liquefied natural gas exports will benefit the entire U.S. economy,” says Stephen Payne, chairman of United LNG. He says that if the pending export licenses are approved, it would add $50 billion to the American economy over seven years.

I believe that the majority of this money will go to the shareholder of Big Gas, while actual consumers will see their gas bills rise, instead of fall, due to the glut in gas being shipped overseas, instead of being used here at home!

Our current Congress has an almost perfect track record of bending over to satisfy Big Businesses’ every whim, while at the same time making life ever more expensive for the majority of Americans they are sworn to SERVE…

The USA should be creating huge strategic stock piles of LNG ( and other things) that would lessen our dependance on importing foreign oil, something that could be reduced at any moment.

I’d like to suggest that a special “National Security Tax” be levied on every cubic foot of LNG sold overseas, that would be specifically used to purchase LNG for the above mentioned strategic stock pile, in order that it is not just the Big Gas Companies that benefit from the current glut in LNG prices. It is past time to start thinking about the long term fiscal health of our country and not just what is best for the BIGS…………

Conversion as much of our transportation and industry from Petroleum over to the use of liquid gas (Natural and soon Hydrogen) should be a national priority and would help US become energy independent sooner!

We need to mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US need to be multi-fuel capable. The Fiat Siena Tetrafuel is in manufacture, on sale, and in use on the road by consumers in Brazil, Argentina and Peru, and has been for several years. The Siena can run on petroleum gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, hydrous ethanol(straight from the still, unblended) and/or methane(fossil natural gas or biogas–or any mixture of the two). The MSRP of the Siena is about $5,000 less than the MSRP of the Toyota Prius which is about the same size with similar equipment.

The choice of what fuels to use should be in the hands of consumers. Let consumers decide what fuel they want to run their vehicles on. Or even what mix of fuels they want to use.

Great example, please consider posting a link in your comments so that others can learn more about what you are relating to.

We have another problem, and that is our own Gov’t. which is preventing Ultra Mileage vehicles from being sold in the USA, because they don’t want to see the highway taxes from the sale of gasoline and diesel get reduced or even disappear, which would happen if everyone suddenly started using electric vehicles, which as of now, don’t pay any highway taxes like traditional drivers do (which are added to the cost of fuel) when they fill-up a the pump!